Unified Structured Inventive Thinking

UNIFIED
STRUCTURED
INVENTIVE
THINKING
AN OVERVIEW
eBook by
Ed Sickafus, PhD
Ntelleck, LLC
Unified Structured Inventive Thinking an Overview
by
Ed. N. Sickafus
Published by: Ntelleck, LLC

Post Office Box 193
Grosse Ile, MI 48138 USA
By requesting this ebook you agree to the conditions given in

Appendix D.
Copyright 2001 by Ed. N. Sickafus

First release as an e-book 2001
Web site: www.u-sit.net
Sickafus, Ed. N.
Unified Structured Inventive Thinking – an Overview
By Ed. N. Sickafus
ISBN 0-9659435-1-8
USIT ii
Copyright Ntelleck, LLC September 2001
Dedicated to
Mary Sue
and to our sons
Kurt
and
Karl
with gratitude
for
enduring
love
support
and
humor.
October 2001
USIT iii
Author biographical sketch
Dr. Ed Sickafus is an inventor, industrial scientist, teacher, author, and
puzzle enthusiast. His industrial manufacturing experience covers steel
casements, aluminum aircraft components, automotive, and ordnance. His
industrial research covers air bearings, molecular pumps, and design and
modeling of miniature sensors and actuators. His basic research studies of
condensed matter include internal friction, growth morphologies of
layered-structure crystals, microcalorimetry, mechanical and electrical
properties of crystalline whiskers, electron scattering from surfaces of
atomically clean metals, and secondary-electron spectroscopes. His industrial positions
include senior staff scientist, manager, and corporate technical specialist.
He received his PhD degree in physics from the University of Virginia and honorary PD
degree from the University of Missouri – Rolla.
He taught physics and engineering courses at the University of Denver before joining the
research staff of Ford Motor Company. He has published over 70 scientific papers and
articles on a wide range of topics. He has given lectures and invited seminars on his research
world wide; including special programs and lecture tours in Spain, Brazil, Mexico, Australia,
Canada, England, Germany, Liechtenstein, Israel, Japan and China. He holds ten patents and
has numerous invention disclosures.
Ed. held positions of Associate Professor in the Physics Department of the University of
Denver, Acting Head of the Physics Division of the Denver Research Institute, Manager of
the Miniature Sensors and Actuators Department and the Physics Department of the Ford
Motor Company’s Research Laboratory, Senior Staff Scientist in the Automotive
Components Division, and leader of a team of SIT experts charged with the application of
SIT methodology worldwide in the Ford Motor Company.
His professional society experiences include former president of the American Vacuum
Society, member of the governing board of the American Institute of Physics, and member of
various society committees. He was a member of the Industrial Advisory Board of the
Berkeley Sensors and Actuators Center at the University of California – Berkeley.
In 1995 he initiated the Structured Inventive Thinking training program in the Ford Motor
Company and led its further development. Since retiring from Ford Motor Company, Ed. has
started Ntelleck, LLC to bring USIT to non-Ford interests (with Ford’s permission).
USIT iv
Contents Page
Author biographical sketch ................................ iv
Contents ............................................................. v
Flow Chart ......................................................... vi
Chapter I. Introduction ...................................... 1
1. Historical notes .............................................. 1
2. Content of this overview ............................... 2
3. Acknowledgements ...................................... 3
Span of USIT ..................................................... 4
Chapter II. How to think about USIT .............. 5
Chapter III. Definitions ..................................... 7
Chapter IV. Thinking-Aid Models ..................... 9
1. O-A-F contact model ..................................... 9
2. Electronic feedback model ............................ 9
Span of USIT ..................................................... 12
Chapter V. USIT Flow Chart ........................... 13
Chapter VI. Well-Defined USIT Problem ........ 15
A well-defined problem exercise ....................... 18
Chapter VII. Closed-World Method .................. 19
1. Closed-world diagram ................................... 19
2. O-A-F statements .......................................... 20
3. Qualitative-change graph .............................. 20
Chapter VIII. Particles Method ......................... 23
1. Morph cartoon .............................................. 23
2. And/or tree ................................................... 24
3. Creation/annihilation boilerplate ................... 25
Chapter IX. USIT Solution Techniques ............ 27
1. Uniqueness ................................................... 28
2. Dimensionality ............................................. 30
3. Pluralization ................................................. 30
4. Distribution .................................................. 31
5. Transduction ................................................. 32
6. Generification ............................................... 33
Chapter X. How to apply USIT ........................ 35
Chapter XI. Conclusion ................................... 36
Appendix A. Miscellaneous exercises ........................ 37
Appendix B. Additional Resources ............................ 39
Appendix C. USIT Textbook Order Form ................. 41
Appendix D. License Agreement ............................... 42
USIT v
Unified Structured Inventive Thinking Flow Chart
Well-Defined Problem
verbal
Problem + unwanted select list root remove simplify
minimize
situation graphic effects one objects causes filters description
description
closed-world
diagram Closed- Particles problem
Method sketch
World
O-A-F Method solution
statements
sketch
qualitative-change
graphs intermediate
states
and/or apply
tree particles
Solution
Techniques
uniqueness dimensionality
pluralization solution
generification concepts
distribution
transduction
USIT vi
Chapter I. Introduction
Few intellectual experiences are as rewarding as innovative problem solving. Where
puzzles typically challenge the problem solver to find a particular known solution,
innovative problem solving challenges the problem solver to discover territory in
solution space not previously visited. The goal of this challenge is to find multiple
solution concepts, as many as possible, as quickly as possible and as innovative as
possible. Hit-or-miss, open-ended-type brainstorming may find some interesting
concepts but is inadequate for expansive and thorough searches. To this end, one
needs the aid of a logically structured methodology. Unified structured inventive
thinking (USIT) has been developed, and proven in industry, to assist the problem
solver in problem definition and analysis, and then in the application of specific
solution techniques for broad, in-depth searches of solution concepts. It is based on a
small set of unifying components (objects, attributes and functions) joined logically
and applied consistently from problem definition, through its analysis, application of
multiple analytical tools, and solution techniques.
This book is a supplement to the textbook, “Unified Structured Inventive Thinking –

How to Invent”.(1) An overview of USIT is presented here with explanations of tools
described in depth in the textbook and tools developed since publication of the
textbook. While the full scope of USIT is presented, examples, exercises,
demonstrations, and discussions of details are rather limited. Supplemental materials
of these types are available in the textbook and on the web.(1, 3)
1. Historical notes
The history of USIT, with its dependence on the Israeli systematic inventive thinking
method (now called ASIT) and TRIZ, is explained in the textbook and not repeated
here. The Israeli goals of simplifying TRIZ and freeing the TRIZ
problem solver of data bases and cue cards bearing essential
tabulated data has been continued in USIT. It is worth noting Israeli
that some differences in the original Israeli SIT method and Method
USIT exist. These arose mostly from a different motivation.

Israeli
USIT has additional tools, some reorganization, a unifying SIT
theory and new strategies needed to optimize its adaptation in
ASIT Ford
modern automotive manufacturing. These needs were not SIT
obvious at first but became evident as the method was
introduced and taught to monthly classes of corporate engineers, USIT
scientists and management personnel. This adaptation has
proven to be quite general and not limited to automotive-type problems.
Modifications introduced in USIT that address corporate needs include

• simplicity for ease of learning and applying the method,
• a unifying theory based on objects, attributes and functions,
• thinking-aid models,
• a plausible root-causes tool,
USIT 1
• uniqueness as a problem-solving tool,
• emphasis on generification and conceptual solutions to aid understanding
fundamental phenomenology of a problem, and
• considerable elaboration of the problem definition process.
Of major concern was that the methodology should prove itself capable through
cogent deliverables. Hence, the methodology is organized and taught with demands
• to achieve viable focus .................................................. for relevance
• to produce multiple solution concepts .......................... for options
• to produce results quickly .............................................. for efficiency
• to accommodate individual and group usage ................ for a corporate tool
• to produce innovative concepts ..................................... for intellectual property
My experience with lecturing, leading and applying structured inventive thinking in

Ford Motor Company had a strong influence on establishing and proving these
capabilities. This environment included teaching of monthly three-day courses,
leading weekly user-group meetings, and participating in daily team exercises
applying the methodology to corporate problems worldwide.
2. Contents of this overview

How to think about USIT when learning it and applying it is explained. It is a tool to
guide the analyst through a thorough analysis while generating new perspectives of a
problem and sparking solution concepts from its beginning to its end.
Brief definitions of the key elements of USIT are discussed – objects, attributes and
the functions they support. All of the tools and procedures in USIT are based on these
three elements.
Two thinking-aid-type models have been developed to aid the understanding of

problem situations and the role and mental application of USIT. These are discussed
to introduce the reader to the philosophy of USIT. One is an object-attribute-function
contact-model and the other is a mental-feedback model.
The USIT flow chart is examined before delving into its various components.
Students are encouraged to practice sketching the appropriate sections of the flow
chart as a problem is analyzed. This quickly engrains the structure on one’s mind and
eliminates any need for cue cards or other tabulated data and strategies.
Industrial experience has underscored the dire need of ability to define a problem.
Most technologists pay lip service to this universal step in problem solving without
investing time or effort to it. Consequently, much time is wasted in attempting to start
on a problem or the effort may even be abandoned out of frustration. Experience
shows that a third or more, sometimes much more, of an analyst’s time on a given
USIT 2
problem can be spent on the problem’s search and definition. In USIT a considerable
effort is spent teaching how to construct efficiently a well-defined problem.
Once defined, a problem is ready for analysis. The first of two problem analysis paths
is the closed-world method. Here the analyst initially views, not the problem
situation, but the original design from the perspective of a properly working system,
made up of objects in contact, and then delves into its misbehavior. By contrast, the
second problem analysis path, the particles method, views the problem from an
ideally functioning solution and then works back to the existing malfunctioning
situation.
Both methods of analysis produce innovative thinking under constrained conditions

of a minimum set of objects – a non-intuitive concept. The analyst is encouraged to
develop solution concepts all through the analysis procedures.
Following problem analysis, six solution techniques are examined. These include
• uniqueness – spatial/temporal characteristics of functions,
• dimensionality – activation/deactivation of attributes,
• pluralization – multiplication/division,
• distribution – rearrangement of functions,
• transduction – attribute-function-attribute links and
• generification – solution templates from known solutions.
Each technique focuses on objects, attributes, functions or their combinations in
various well-defined ways. The somewhat cumbersome titles (at first sight) were
selected as cues to the techniques they denote.
The book closes with references to sources of other relevant materials.
3. Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Dr. C. H. Stephan, my friend and former colleague in teaching
structured inventive thinking in Ford Motor Company. Our many discussions and
experiences shared in the monthly classes at Ford were always thought provoking and
constructive. Dr. Stephan continues to teach the classes since my retirement.
I am also grateful to the more than one thousand students both within and external to
Ford Motor Company who shared their ideas and experiences with the methodology
and helped lead to its deeper understanding.
USIT 3
Span of USIT
Problem situation
… usually begins (unfortunately) with a convolution of several
unclear unwanted effects requiring time and effort to sort out.
Problem definition
… identifies a single unwanted effect, reduces it to a minimal
set of objects, and removes all filters.
Problem analysis
… uses structured processes for creating new and unusual
vantage points from which to view a problem.
Problem solution
… applies formal techniques focused on objects, attributes, and
functions.
USIT 4
Chapter II. How to think about USIT
Since USIT was motivated by industrial needs, it is useful to understand its intent in
this environment in order best to appreciate its capability.
Most important is that industrial technologists who come to USIT classes are already
accomplished engineers and scientists. Many are inventors attested by their patent
holdings. They are problem solvers adept and ingrained in conventional engineering
tools. Consequently, USIT is designed to be an auxiliary tool and not to replace
existing (proven) methodologies. And so, this is important, it takes an unconventional
approach to problem solving in order to bring new concepts to the process. This puts
noticeable stress on those new to USIT as they begrudgingly release their grip on old
ways of thinking about problem analysis.
Students of USIT are encouraged to apply their conventional problem solving

expertise before resorting to USIT; after all, they should be more efficient with the
more familiar. Subsequent discovery of new solution concepts assures a greater
confidence in the USIT methodology.
USIT promises unusual perspectives of a problem situation in order to discover

insights others have overlooked. Unusual perspectives derive from unconventional
thinking. Therefore, a student claiming to be learning or applying USIT, but using
conventional analysis methods, is fooling himself/herself and is wasting company
time and money. The way to think about USIT is to set aside all other tools while
applying USIT and let its structure lead you in a disciplined way to new vistas and
inspirations.
Especially important is to recognize that problem-solving methodologies do not give

solutions. The problem solver must discover solution concepts and then engineer
working solutions. What a problem-solving methodology does is to show the way
through solution space while generating new perspectives and sparking innovative
thinking. Solution concepts come to mind from the beginning of USIT application,
throughout its structure, to its termination. Therefore, make every step of your USIT
procedure pay off. Solution concepts should be expected at each turn of one’s
thinking process.
It is a tacit assumption of USIT that thinking is sparked by the metaphorical impact of

written and spoken words as well as sketches, photographs and hardware. Throughout
a USIT exercise the analyst is encouraged to write words and make sketches. As new
depth is achieved in a problem these metaphors should be modified appropriately.
The action of speaking, writing and sketching causes the mind to halt a moment and
commit to an instantaneous state of imagery. This imagery anchors one’s focus until
modification to a new anchor point is justified.
USIT 5
To the novice, USIT may seem to have intimidating writing, sketching, graphing and
tree structures to be constructed, as evidenced by the elaborate figures in the text. In
practice, the accomplished practitioner makes quick and simple notes and sketches
that satisfy each of the tools. That is, all of the USIT tools are exercised, because it is
this mental commitment of images to paper that creates focus and clarifies thinking,
but they are not done in any elaborate fashion. Both speed and thoroughness are
desirable.
Unified structured inventive thinking is a thorough search for solution concepts. A

solution concept, derived from an analysis stripped of metrics, is intended to address
fundamentals of physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics. Solution concepts
resolve unwanted effects at their basic phenomenological level. This is the pre-
engineering phase of problem solving. After the USIT procedure, an appropriate
concept must be selected and engineered to produce a final working solution that
accommodates all required specifications.
Students sometimes worry whether a particular USIT analysis they have created is
“correct”, and how do they find out. The best answer is, “Did it cause you to think
and find new solution concepts?” There is no right or wrong here, but only degrees of
effectiveness. It’s something like mathematics. When given a mathematics problem to
work, you don’t need the answer. Using mathematical reasoning you can test your
solution’s validity for yourself.
A most important view of USIT is as an effective and efficient (easily applied)

problem-solving methodology. This is beginning to sound like so much repetition.
But there is a message here that is not caught by the novice who raises the question in
every USIT class, “but doesn’t that concept cause another problem?” This usually
arises when the concepts of a minimum set of objects, and a closed world, are
introduced. Engineers trained to do (or at least think of) comprehensive systems
analyses may be uncomfortable with restricted thinking. The answer is, “Maybe, but
so what? If it does, we now have the tools to address it efficiently.”
USIT 6
Chapter III. Definitions
The basic components of a USIT analysis are objects, attributes and the functions*
they support.
1. Object
An object exists of itself and can make contact with another object whereby they can
support a function. An unusual object, but a useful one, is information.
Object examples
Examples of objects include a ball, a motor (an assembly of objects is a compound
object), a windshield-wiper blade, hinge, water, a fish and information (e.g., an
electrical signal from a sensor).
Non-objects include a hole, heat, weight (gravitational force), magnetic field, color
and others. These non-object examples are actually attributes of objects.
2. Attribute
Attributes characterize or distinguish objects. Attributes can exist throughout an
object or be localized within it. They are properties described by certain general
words. Metrics, or quantifiers, are not allowed as attributes, since USIT strips all
problems of numbers, specifications, dimensions, etc.
Attribute examples
Attributes include shape, elasticity, color, weight, and internal energy among others.
Non-attributes include red (quantifies color), 20 pounds (quantifies weight), 5o

Celsius and 12.4 inches among others.
3. Function
Functions modify or prevent modification of attributes.
Function examples
Functions include to change elevation, to modify constants, to fix position, to react
force, to change color, to increase heat content, and other actions (while learning they
are best worded as infinitives).
_____________________
(*) Objects (O), attributes (A) and functions (F) are sometimes distinguished with bold,
italic, and underscored fonts respectively.
USIT 7
4. Visualization aids
An object can be sketched as a definite outline with
indefinite color or pattern.
An attribute can be represented as a color or pattern without

an outline.
The combination of these two sketches represents an object

with a locally active attribute.
At the point of contact of two objects active attributes

fcn
support a function (labeled “fcn” in the sketch).
USIT 8
Chapter IV. Thinking-aid models
The two models described here are simple, rather intuitive concepts. One emphasizes
contact between two objects as a point of focus. The other depicts the rapid process
(mostly unconscious) by which we do mental trial-and-error comparisons, and then
learning, of test solution concepts.
1. The O-A-F contact model

A simple graphic is used to illustrate the contact concept of objects, attributes and
functions, as illustrated in Fig. (1).
Object -A
A-attribute Object
attribute
B-attribute
Object -B
Function
Figure 1. Two objects, A and B, make contact to support a function through an attribute of
each. The function modifies or prevents modification of an attribute of an object, A or B or
another object.
This model aids the analyst to appreciate focusing on the point of contact of two
objects and to identify active attributes at that contact.
2. The electronic feedback model

A common phenomenon of problem solving is a technologist’s unconscious and
instantaneous mental reaction upon encountering a problem – we try to solve it. The
unconsciousness of the act is as though problems somehow unbalance our mental
calm and our brains react automatically to resolve the problem and restore a peaceful
balance. The seeming spontaneity of our mental processes during problem solving is
rather astounding. Many times answers come to the fore of our conscious so quickly
that we are unaware of any effort being expended to find them. At other times
protracted efforts are required.
Another aspect of the mental process of problem solving, another we can know by
introspection, is that most often we solve problems by comparing a given situation
with our past experience. As we ponder the problem situation a solution concept
comes to mind. This is compared with details of the problem to test its viability. If
acceptable the problem is solved. If not, we modify the concept and test it again, or
we resume our pondering until another concept reaches our conscious. Note that
intermediate iterations, ones that produce inadequate concepts, instantaneously
imprint the concept and its modification onto our past experience. Hence, past
experience is referred to here as dynamic experience – it grows as we exercise it
while thinking about a problem.
USIT 9
A third aspect of problem solving is one we may not be so aware of without
consciously examining a specific solution procedure. This aspect occurs when we
discover a generated concept is not satisfactory, instead of modifying the concept we
challenge the problem. This is an extremely important step in problem solving. It is
the best way to motivate improvement of problem definition.
An electronic feedback-circuit model can be used to capture these aspects of the

mental problem-solving process and others. Such a circuit has the inverted output of
an amplifier fed back to its differential input. This modifies the original input signal
and forces the output toward zero – a balanced state. The inherent speed of an
electronic feedback loop, as it cycles to smaller and smaller imbalance, represents the
spontaneity aspect of mental solution-concept generation.
It is the nature of a feedback operational-amplifier circuit to shift its output towards

zero, a state of balance. In a feedback circuit two input signals are compared at a
summing junction. Their difference is examined for balance, inverted, amplified, and
feed back (as an “error signal”) to the input to bias it toward a balanced state. The
larger the imbalance (error) the larger is the feedback correction, the smaller the
imbalance the less correction is required. Our model is shown in Fig. (2). Here two
input signals enter a summing junction: one is the problem and the other is the trial
solution-concept proffered by our subconscious. If their difference is zero a viable
solution has been found. If it is not, the difference is feedback for the next try. In this
case, the difference can occur in either of two feedback loops: one involves
modification of the inadequate trial concept; the other involves modification of the
problem.
The USIT feedback model emphasizes several important features of problem solving.
• First, note that the input representing the problem can derive at any level of the
problem definition (original problem statement > unwanted effect > objects,
attributes and functions > metaphors).
• Second, our mental past experience is changing dynamically all during the
problem-solving process.
• Third, two options exist for feedback information: one is a modified trial concept,
and the second is modification of the problem.
• Fourth, looping in a feedback mode is suggestive of making incremental changes in
test concepts.
• Fifth, another feature is the inherent speed of the feedback circuit – a feature
inaccessible to our conscious.
USIT 10
modify
problem
problem
to be
solved
an
unwanted
effect
no
objects
attributes
functions yes
resolution
metaphors ?
no
dynamic
experience
modify
concept
Figure 2. A model of our mental problem-solving process: two inputs, a characteristic of the
problem and a trial solution concept drawn from dynamic experience, are compared at a
summing junction (circle with crossed lines) and their difference examined to determine
adequacy of the trial concept.
USIT 11
Span of USIT
Problem situation
… usually begins (unfortunately) with a convolution of several
unclear unwanted effects requiring time and effort to sort out.
Problem definition
… identifies a single unwanted effect, reduces it to a minimal
set of objects, and removes all filters.
Problem analysis
… uses structured processes for creating new and unusual
vantage points from which to view a problem.
Problem solution
… applies formal techniques focused on objects, attributes, and
functions.
USIT 12
Chapter V. USIT flow chart
The USIT flow chart is shown in Fig. (3). Arrows in the chart and the word “flow” in
the title may seem to imply that the process is a diode-like one-way flow. Of course,
our minds do not function so orderly. In reality our minds jump from place to place
more quickly than we may realize. Effort is required, therefore, to keep the flow chart
within view, as the process is under way, and make frequent references to it to assure
thoroughness and efficiency. Meanwhile, uncontrolled excursions of the mind can be
very fruitful when driven by a search for new concepts.
Figure 3. USIT flow chart (see text for discussion).
The USIT flow chart is divided into four sections: well-defined problem, closed-
world method, particles method and solution techniques. Each section will be
discussed in the following chapters.
To be noted here is the detail incorporated in the well-defined problem section.

Without adequate attention to this section, all the promises of USIT are at risk.
1. Well-defined problem
Convolutions of several ill-defined effects typify an initial problem statement. If this

complication is not identified and resolved quickly the analyst may languish in a state
of uncertainty unable to find a foothold on the problem situation. The well-defined
problem section contains steps designed to enable rapid problem definition with
effective focus.
USIT 13
2. Closed-world diagram D
B
Once the problem has been defined, two analysis methods are A
available. One is the closed-world method which is executed C

E
with a fixed set of objects; hence, a closed world.
3. Particles method x x
x
x
xxxx
A second method is the particles method and bears recognizable
x x
influence from the smart little people of TRIZ. This has the x x or
unusual approach of working back from an ideal solution to the xxx x
problem situation. Multiple configurations of particles in the xxxx
final state may be possible, but one is selected for analysis. xxxx
4. Solution techniques
Six techniques for solving problems are contained in this section. Implications of this
title also may be misleading. Since the solution-techniques section is placed as the
last phase, it might appear that solution concepts are not to be expected until after
problem analysis is complete. As pointed out earlier, solution concepts are to be
expected at all points throughout the USIT process. Solution techniques come into
play as a concerted effort to exercise specific approaches to discover yet more
solution concepts not found earlier in the exercise.
USIT 14
Well-Defined Problem
verbal
Problem + unwanted select list root remove simplify
minimize
situation graphic effects one objects causes filters description
description
Chapter VI. Well-defined USIT problem

We begin USIT with a problem situation from which we must extract a well-defined
problem. Whatever the form of the initial information it should be put into written
sentences and graphic sketches to start the problem. Photographs, blue prints,
hardware and on-site visits to the problem’s location also provide beneficial
information.
Two kinds of thinking cues are captured in the first step of the well-defined problem
section: verbal and graphic metaphors. Through the rest of this section these
metaphors are simplified and improved.
1. Verbal and graphic descriptions
Verbal and graphic descriptions are done quickly to capture relevant information
without concern for perfection. More often than not the result of this step will not be a
single, well-defined problem – the initial target of USIT. Be sure these two
descriptions capture the problem situation; if they don’t, iterate the process.
2. Unwanted effects
The verbal and graphic descriptions are examined for unwanted effects, as many as
can be identified. Each unwanted effect is a problem; but, not necessarily one worth
focusing on.
3. Select one unwanted effect
The unwanted effects are listed, ranked, and one is selected. From here on, it is the
problem to be addressed. Once a single unwanted effect is selected, it may be
profitable to rework the verbal and graphic descriptions to eliminate unnecessary
details.
4. List objects
Make a list of objects that contain the newly selected problem. They should already
be contained in the verbal and graphic descriptions.
USIT 15
5. Minimize
The list of objects is minimized to just those objects necessary to contain the problem.
Pay attention to object-object contacts where the unwanted effect exists.
6. Root causes
To be well defined, a problem’s descriptions must contain root causes. When not
available, USIT provides a tool for finding plausible root causes.
7. Plausible root causes tool
A USIT plausible root-cause analysis, Fig. (4), begins with the statement of an
unwanted effect at its topmost level. The next level contains the minimal set of
objects of the problem. Each object is examined for contributory causes of the
unwanted effect; several may be identified. Each cause is then considered to be an
unwanted effect and more basic causes are identified. Each branch is terminated when
an attribute is reached. The lowest level causes are examined to identify other
supporting attributes. These are listed under each branch. Every attribute is a
plausible root cause, and a point to ponder for solution concepts.
an unwanted effect
object object object
cause/effect cause/effect cause/effect cause/effect
• attributes • attributes • attributes

• “ • “ • “ cause/effect
• “ • “ • “
• attributes
• “
• “
Figure 4. Plausible root-causes analysis: the closed-world objects are examined individually
to identify causes by which each supports the unwanted effect. Each cause becomes a
potential effect for a more basic cause. Several cause/effect layers are possible. Causes are
then analyzed according to their supporting attributes.
Reduction to root-cause attributes does not produce uniform results; each analyst will
discover different depths of root causes depending on personal experience and
training. Uniformity is not a goal. Rather the plausible root-causes tool assists the
analyst in reaching the lowest depth of fundamental understanding he/she is capable
USIT 16
of or interested in. This becomes the working level for the rest of the problem solving
exercise. The goal is accessible depth and maximum breadth.
8. Remove filters
Postponing judgment of solution feasibility is a well-known recommendation for

innovative problem solving. USIT goes a step further and requires all filters to be
removed from the problem-solving process. Since USIT is a pre-engineering phase of
problem solving, and emphasis is placed on conceptual solutions, no specifications,
dimensions, numerical data or other quantitative metrics are allowed. Customer
wants, management needs, and business-type boundary conditions are filters also to
be removed. Time spent, during innovative problem solving, worrying about filter
criteria is time wasted – a corporate loss. Filters are needed to rank and select
problems and again to rank and select solution concepts. They play no useful role
during the process of innovative problem solving.
9. Simplify description
Simplification of problem description is ongoing during production of a well-defined

problem. The goal is to translate an original problem description, with its engineering
details, into a conceptual description made up of generic metaphors. This enables
depth of understanding with thought provoking images conducive to discovery of
innovative concepts.
10. Two methods for problem analysis
Once a well-defined problem has been constructed, we turn to problem analysis for
additional opportunities to see the problem differently. Two methods are available,
the closed-world method (CW-method) and the particles method; either can be used
for any problem.
While learning USIT and honing one’s skills, using the CW-method is recommended
for problems having a solution but in need of a better one. It is recommended to use
the particles method for problems having no solutions. Later it will become of interest
to try both methods on the same problem.
A common situation for a corporate technologist is to be given a malfunctioning

subsystem and asked to fix it; i.e., to redesign it so that it functions as desired. It
most likely is also required to produce a new design that does not require
modification of the parent system – a so-called “drop-in” solution. The closed-
world of a minimal set of objects is an effective mental environment for this
exercise.
USIT 17
11. A well-defined problem exercise
Your company manufactures spark plugs for internal combustion engines. Your
manager calls you in and says, “Our customer is dissatisfied with our product – fix
it!” He then dismisses you and departs for vacation. How can you make a well-
defined problem out of this ill-defined one?
(To work on this exercise you do not have to be an automotive engineer. Simply
understand the functions of a spark plug and its components. Then assume a
manufacturing process and proceed.)
1. Draw a sketch of a spark plug and label all of its parts (for information visit
the web or an encyclopedia). Keep it simple.
2. List all of its objects.
3. List every unwanted effect in this product that you can think of that could
bother the customer.
4. Rank these unwanted effects from the most troublesome to the one of least
concern. Use whatever criteria you wish for the ranking, but have one or more
criteria.
5. Select the top ranked unwanted effect. State it as a problem to be solved using
names of objects in the statement.
6. List the objects.
7. Minimize the list of objects to just those needed to contain the selected
unwanted effect.
8. Do a plausible root-cause analysis of the unwanted effect.
9. List any filters appearing in your problem statement.
10. Write a new problem statement without filters and with only the minimum set
of objects. Use metaphors.
11. Draw a sketch of the new problem situation.
USIT 18
closed-world
diagram Closed-
World
O-A-F Method
statements
qualitative-change
graphs
Chapter VII. Closed-world method

A closed-world analysis is confined to the minimum set of objects in the well-defined
problem. The analysis begins with examination of the system of the cw-objects from
the perspective of a properly functioning system. This is accomplished in the cw-
diagram.
1. Closed-world diagram
A cw-diagram begins with one of the cw-objects selected as the most important
object and placed at the top. The remaining subordinate objects are connected with
the top object using functional links (as illustrated in Fig. 5).
object-A
function B-A function C-A
object-B object-C object-E
function D-C
object-D
Figure 5. A cw-diagram having four functionally connected objects and one unconnected
object.
Criteria for assembling a cw-diagram have been designed to force a fresh perspective.
• Functions must be desirable functions.
• An object can appear only once in a diagram.
• An object is a proper subordinate if removal of its superior renders its function
unnecessary.
• An object can initiate only one function: consequently, branching downwards is
allowed but branching upwards is not.
USIT 19
• If no functional connectivity exists, the object may belong in another cw-diagram,
or simply remain alone. A stand-alone object, for example, might be a
neighborhood object.
Functional links in the diagram represent desirable links since the cw-diagram
analyzes not the problem but the system working properly as designed.
2. O-A-F statements
Experience shows that most students have little trouble using the concept of objects,
with the possible exception of information as an object. Functions also are readily
grasped. But, active attributes can cause difficulty. Object-attribute-function
statements can be used to mitigate this difficulty. A good place to use them is
between the cw-diagram and the qualitative-change-graph (the
next topic). They are also effective with the plausible root-causes exercise. Their
purpose is to assist the analyst in identifying active attributes and to bring attention to
their fundamental connectivity with objects and functions.
O-A-F statements follow the O-A-F-contact model described in chapter IV. At a point
of contact we know what the objects are and the functions present. We need to
identify active attribute pairs, one from each object, that support the functions. O-A-F
statements can be used to analyze both desirable and undesirable functions or effects.
Full sentences can be used to express O-A-F statements or, a quicker method, a
simple table of the components in the same order.
O-A-F sentence template:

Attribute of object-A interacts with attribute of object-B to (function)
change/maintain attribute of object-(X).
Example: Writing on paper with a fountain pen has several points of contact. One
involves the split pen point and the paper. Pressure of the paper interacts with
elasticity of the pen point to broaden the gap of the pen point (allowing ink to flow).
O-A-F table:
attribute object-A attribute object-B function attribute object-x
pressure paper elasticity pen point to spread gap pin point
Difficulty experienced when first encountering attributes as key elements in problem

analysis is indicative of their unfamiliarity. This is just the kind of new and atypical
vantage point USIT searches for. Try them you’ll like them!
USIT 20
3. Qualitative-change graph
A very effective device from the Israeli’s SIT method is the qualitative-change graph.
It has been modified in USIT to utilize the minimum set of objects and their active
attributes. The cw-method began with examination of a properly working system
depicted in the cw-diagram. The qc-graph, by comparison, examines the malfunction
of the system – the problem.
An unwanted effect is plotted on the ordinate and active attributes of the cw-objects
on the abscissa of a simple linear graph. The unwanted effect is described as “getting
worse” in the upward direction of the axis. A sloping straight line represents the trend
connecting an active attribute with the unwanted effect. This is not a mathematical
analysis; rather, it simply shows if increasing an active attribute causes the unwanted
effect to increase or decrease. It is convenient to make two graphs to separate
reciprocal relationships for ease of reading; in one increasing attributes increase the
unwanted effect, in the other decreasing attributes cause the unwanted effect to
increase (see Fig. 6).
A qc-graph shows a problem characteristic, a mapping of an attribute on an unwanted

effect, having a finite slope. A “qualitative change” occurs when the problem
characteristic can be moved to zero slope. This leads to two recommended solution
attempts. One is to produce a qualitative change by eliminating the causal attribute.
The other is to consider the problem characteristic as evidence that the causal
attribute is “working against us” and find a way to make it work for us.
unwanted problem characteristic problem characteristic

effect
qualitative change qualitative change
object-A … object-A object-A … object-A
• attribute • attribute • attribute • attribute

• attribute • attribute • attribute • attribute
• “ • “ • “ • “
Figure 6. Two QC-graphs showing how changes in attributes of the minimum set of objects
are related to changes in the unwanted effect.
From QC-graph to solution concepts:

• eliminate a causal attribute, and
• make a causal attribute work for you.
Once the cw-analysis is completed the analyst moves to the solution techniques.
USIT 21
4. Closed-world method exercises
1) A shirt to be pressed, an ironing board, a person, and an electric iron form a
system designed to produce a wrinkle-free shirt.
• Construct a cw-diagram of this system.

• Change the iron to a steam-iron and construct another diagram.
2) A mechanical window opener has a scissor-jack connecting the window with its
frame. A handle is rotated by hand to operate the scissor jack and reposition the
window. Which cw-diagram below best describes this system?
window scissor
window frame
to hold to move to turn to support to support
to change separation
frame scissor hand frame window
scissor
to turn
to turn
hand
hand
3) Two wires are wrapped around a screw on an electrical switch. Write two or
more O-A-F statements for two different points of contact of these objects.
4) A cup of hot tea rests on a small mat, which is resting on a table.
• List the active attributes of the cup.

• List the active attributes of the mat.
• List the active attributes of the table.
5) A map-light placed in the roof of an automobile illuminates the area of the

driver’s seat, and is operated by a switch on the dashboard.
• List the objects of this system

• If an unwanted effect is inappropriate area of illumination, list the
minimum set of objects to contain this problem.
USIT 22
Particles problem
Method sketch
solution
sketch
intermediate
states
and/or apply
tree particles
Chapter VIII. Particles method

The particles method analyzes a problem from its ideal solution back to its unwanted
effect. This is done quickly using simple sketches as graphic metaphors. Prior to this
reverse analysis, a morph cartoon is constructed describing the transition.
An ideal solution is one that does its job perfectly, costs nothing and doesn’t exist! An
example – the coffee cup holder embossed in the back of the glove-compartment door
of a modern automobile.
1. Morph cartoon
A sketch is made of the problem situation using simple representations of the

minimum set of objects. A second sketch is similar but depicts the ideal solution.
Intermediate sketches are added, if needed, to complete a logical morphing from the
ideal solution back to the problem situation.
intemediate
sketches as
needed
problem situation ideal solution
Figure 7. A morph cartoon showing a transition from the problem situation to its ideal solution.
An example is shown in Fig. (7) without intermediate sketches. To these sketches

particles are added in, on, or around areas where a modification is required to effect
the morphological change. Particles are shown as x’s in Fig. (8). As indicated in the
figure, particles have been added around the oval in the problem-situation sketch. In
the ideal-solution sketch the particles are assembled to the side, having completed
their task. They could also have been left in place. One or the other location may
seem more logical in a given situation; in either case, the selected configuration is
analyzed.
USIT 23
xx xx xxxxx
x x xxxxx
xx xx
problem situation ideal solution
Figure 8. Particles have been added to Fig. (7) to indicate where change is required.
Further analysis is now limited to the particles. Don’t analyze areas having no
particles – stay focused!
2. And/or tree
It remains to determine how the particles accomplish the desired solution. Particles
are treated as though they have magical properties and can do anything physical,
chemical, biological, or mathematical that makes technological sense to the analyst.
Whimsical effects are not allowed. The analysis proceeds from the ideal solution to
the problem situation. Details are charted in a logical and/or tree diagram. The and/or
tree structure is shown in Fig. (9).
statement of the ideal solution
clause and/or clause

and/or and/or
actions actions actions actions
• property • property • property • property

• … • … • … • …
Figure 9. The QC-method’s and/or tree. Note, the shaded “and/or” placeholders will be either
“and” or “or” in a given tree, not both.
The top level of the and/or tree is a statement of the ideal solution; compound
statements are recommended to broaden options. For example: “the hole is given a
square cross-section and passes all the way through the parallelepiped”, see Fig. (7).
At the next level, the compound statement is broken into its clauses, each to head a
new branch of the and/or tree.
Beginning with the ideal solution sketch and examining each clause in turn, the
analyst asks what are the particles doing in that sketch to accomplish the clause in
question. These are inserted in the and/or tree as “actions” of particles. Moving to the
left in the morph cartoon, the next sketch is examined for new actions of the particles
USIT 24
that support the actions identified in the previous sketch. Thus, actions become
columns with branches of actions supporting actions. When the branches of actions
are completed in the problem situation sketch, the solution process has been
completed metaphorically.
Other clues to solution concepts can arise from tree branches addressing particles’
initiation and termination. To reduce complexity of the original and/or tree these can
be done as separate structures. At issue here is how did the particles get where there
are in the problem situation sketch and what happened to them when they finished
their tasks? These questions are the same for every problem so a boilerplate and/or
tree can be used (see Fig. 10).
3. Creation/annihilation boilerplate
As shown in Fig. (10), the boilerplate has two sections, one addressing how the
particles came to be, and the other how they were terminated. To use the boilerplate,
the analyst simply lists properties the particles would need to have …
• been present where needed,
• been put there,
• gotten themselves there, and
• been created there.
For their termination, the analyst lists properties needed if the particles …
• remain in place,
• are removed,
• leave of their own accord, and
• are annihilated.
The seeming anthropomorphic properties are intentional to achieve unusual
perspectives.
USIT 25
particles’ initiation
already put get created

present there there there

particles’ termination
remain removed leave anni-

hilated

Figure 10. Particles’ initiation/termination boilerplate for an and/or tree.
The and/or tree is completed by examining terminal actions of each branch and listing
all possible properties of the particles that are implied by their actions.
As the process of finding solution concepts from the and/or tree unfolds, actions of
the imaginary particles will become functions of cw-objects and their properties will
become active attributes. Anded-attributes, especially those between different clauses,
are good starting points to spark ideas for solution concepts. Anded-attributes
implying contradictions are potent starting points as well. From here, the analyst
works through the and/or tree examining pairs of attributes to discover solution
concepts.
Complete examples of the cw-method and particles method are to be found in the
textbook. (1)
Having completed the particles method and searched solution concepts in the process,
one begins to apply the USIT solution techniques.
USIT 26
Solution
Techniques
uniqueness dimensionality
pluralization solution
generification concepts
distribution
transduction
Chapter IX. USIT Solution techniques

The analyst, upon reaching this stage of the flow chart, should have multiple solution
concepts already listed. We now employ structured solution techniques to enable
visualization of the problem situation in even more variations for finding additional
solution concepts. With practice of USIT these techniques become an unconscious
mode of thinking. Consequently, upon reaching this stage of the methodology, one
often discovers that the techniques have already been used subconsciously. However,
the techniques are still addressed formally to assure thoroughness.
USIT students quickly become aware of redundancies in results of the solution

techniques. Concepts found by one technique might also have been discovered using
another. Such redundancies simply illustrate how different metaphors take root and
produce different results in different minds, or in the same mind (metaphors can have
overlapping spheres of influence).
Confinement to the minimal set of objects is a very creative constraint. (1, 3) However,
it sometimes comes to mind that an additional object might offer a new solution
opportunity. In this case, it is an effective strategy to immediately assume the
presence of the new object, find solution concepts it allows and the associated
attributes it brings. Once the new concepts have been tabulated, search for more
creative solutions by eliminating the extra object. Eliminate the object and consider
how to activate the newly identified attributes within the minimal set of objects.
It is recommended that uniqueness be examined first, and then the other solution
techniques can be used in any order.
USIT 27
1. Uniqueness
Uniqueness is nothing more than identifying and listing characteristics of the problem
that are unique to the problem – the features that make a problem different from an
otherwise similar one. These perspectives can be effective vantage points. This
sounds simple. However, it became evident that students claim to understand the
concept of uniqueness in lectures but cannot employ it in practice. A simple graphic
approach was devised to mitigate this difficulty.
After listing the obvious uniqueness of a problem (or after giving up) two graphic
techniques can be employed. One is to examine the functions (in the CW-diagram) in
space (spatial uniqueness) and the other is to examine them in time (temporal
uniqueness).
Spatial uniqueness focuses on function locations.

The sketch used in the well-defined problem has the minimum set of objects and
contains the problem. By examining this sketch for characteristics that distinguish
these objects from some another situation, the analyst may discover solution
concepts. Features to look for are the locations of functions; this means to find the
points of object-object contact where the functions are active.
Temporal uniqueness focuses on function activation/deactivation.

A simple time-line plot showing functions as rectangles only when the functions are
active is very informative. Here we may see disjoint activities, overlapped activities
and multiplexed activities (see illustrations in Fig. 11).
USIT 28
function-A function-B
A. Disjoint functions time (space)
B. Overlapped functions time (space)
C. Multiplexed functions time (space)
Figure 11. Two functions shown in various unique arrangements of activity: (A) disjoint, (B)
overlapped, and (C) multiplexed in several ways.
As unique features are discovered their alternatives should be pondered for new
concepts. For example,
• If functions are disjoint, try reversing, overlapping, and multiplexing them.
• If functions are overlapped, try reversing, separating, and multiplexing them.
• If functions are multiplexed, try reversing, unifying, and overlapping them, as
well as creating/changing/destroying their periodicity.
Now visualize Fig. (11) as though it were a linear spatial plot with time replaced by a
distance attribute (separation, length, or other spatial connotation). In a metaphorical
way one can now examine the spatial plot for functions that could be separated,
overlapped, or reversed spatially. They could, as well, be multiplexed in the sense of
turning them on at different locations.
Spatial-uniqueness-type solutions
• A flexible seal leaked. The overlapped functions, to seal
and to flex, were separated to solve the problem.
• After lathering her hands the mechanic scraped away the grime still remaining.
The separated functions to lather and to scrape where overlapped in grit-
impregnated soap.
USIT 29
• Two steel vacuum chambers were joined by a short section
of flexible pipe that developed fatigue cracks. The flexible
pipe was multiplexed into several equal lengths of different
diameters and welded together at their alternate inner ends to
form one piece having the same overall length. Adequate
stress relaxation was achieved to prevent fatigue. (This
concept might also be found through pluralization.)
The order of exercising the remaining solution techniques is not important. Notice
how each technique brings new perspectives of the problem by emphasizing the
different fundamental components of USIT (objects, attributes and functions).
2. Dimensionality
Dimensionality focuses on attributes. Both QC-graphs and and/or trees bring to light
the relevant attributes for solution concepts. Using dimensionality the analyst is asked
to consider turning off and turning on attributes in strategic locations and time
periods. Attribute mapping is also considered; this means to map one attribute onto
another (e.g., time onto space).
Dimensionality-type solution
• Viewing distant and near objects through eyeglasses
involves looking through upper or lower portions of
the lens respectively (spatial uniqueness – angle of
viewing). By turning on the attribute of focal length
to different degrees in different locations of the lens
(or mapping of focal length onto position), the
continuously variable focal-length lens concept may
be found.
3. Pluralization
Pluralization focuses on objects allowing their multiplication and division
(pluralization) to obtain new objects for different uses.
Objects in the closed world can be multiplied to make as many copies as desired,
including very large numbers (think of an infinite number). This is a reasonable
approach to a real-world problem because one often deals with manufacturing
environments where many copies of an object are readily available.
USIT 30
In pluralization objects can also be divided into parts and the parts used differently.
Parts can be divided infinitesimally (think of molecules).
Addition and subtraction of objects is allowed where addition involves a

neighborhood object. Subtraction allows removal of an object. Addition and
subtraction, for some analysts, may be metaphors for other mathematical concepts
such as integration and differentiation, respectively.
Pluralization-type solutions
• Multiplication: One iridescent colored cone placed along a
roadside serves as single-point cautionary sign; hundreds of them can sustain the
information for miles.
• Division: Digital cameras and video cams held at arm’s length, to photograph
over the heads in a crowd for example, become difficult, if not impossible, to
know where
they are being pointed. Root cause is that the monitor is part of the camera. The
camera can be divided into parts, one of which is the monitor. The monitor can be
held in one hand in full view while the camera is held overhead, the two being
connected by a cable. (RCA CC9390 digital camcorder, “Popular Science”,
October 2001, p15.)
4. Distribution
Distribution focuses on functions. Using the CW-diagram, the
analyst literally moves a function to a different pair of objects and
asks what the new arrangement implies. That is, what must now be
done to the objects’ attributes to support the function?
Distribution-type solution
Drawing with a pencil: hand holds wooden shaft, wooden shaft
holds pencil-lead, pencil-lead marks paper. If the function to
hold pencil-lead is moved from shaft to paper scratch painting
comes to mind as well as carbon tracing paper (a thing of the
past).
USIT 31
5. Transduction
Transduction focuses on A-F-A links. An important feature of the O-A-F contact
model is its two built-in A-F-A links (One is bolded in Fig. 12).
Object -A
A-attribute Object
B-attribute Function attribute
Object -B
Figure 12. Two A-F-A links are evident in the O-A-F contact model; the upper one is bolded in
this drawing.
Transduction suggests thinking of paths from one object to another involving chains
of one or more A-F-A links. This is effective when initial and final attributes are
evident but their functional connectivity is not. Insertion of another link may resolve
the problem. Chains also can be built involving additional objects.
Physical effects, such as piezoelectricity, should be thought of as A-F-A transduction

links.
Transduction-type solution
• Removing spider webs with a brush forms a sticky deposit of webs on the brush
that can be difficult to remove. The problem situation has webs stuck on a brush.
Its solution has webs unstuck from the brush.
O-A-F statement: stickiness of web interacts with chemical affinity of brush to

adhere forming a web-coated brush.
The causal A-F-A links are stickiness - to adhere – web-coated and chemical
affinity - to adhere – web-coated; both can be investigated for solution concepts.
A transduction solution path could look like
A – F – A –F– A
Stickiness – to adhere – web-coated – F – web-free.
Stickiness, web-coated and web-free are attributes of surfaces. Web-coated and

web-free are, in this problem situation, the same surface. The linking unknown
function in the above solution path could be to separate the surfaces. How can
that be done? It comes to mind to insert a “sacrificial” object that can be stuck to
the web on one side and not on the other -- a coating, one that has no chemical
affinity to the brush. For example, a dust of small particles could be blown onto
the web rendering its exposed surface non-sticky.
USIT 32
This solution concept has introduced a third object not in the closed world. To
remain in the closed world, the “dust” must be gotten from its objects – the brush
probably has non-sticky parts, such as its handle. Hence, divide the handle into
parts and grind a part of it into a dust. This USIT conceptual solution might be
engineered into a real-world product having a brush containing a supply of
talcum powder in its handle and a simple mechanism for dusting it onto a web
before wiping the web onto the brush.
6. Generification
Recall from the feedback thinking model that the mind makes incremental changes to
past experience to find new concepts. Generification as a solution technique simply
revisits each solution concept already found and uses it as a template to spark new
ideas. Before using an already found concept it is generalized; meaning it is reduced
to its basic phenomenology; i.e., to what makes it succeed as a solution concept.
Generification-type solution
A problem solved recently using the generification solution technique concerned
poorly sticking paint in a scratch-paint recipe. The recipe requires first applying
colored crayons densely to a sheet of paper. Then a few drops
of detergent are mixed into a black water-soluble paint, which
is spread onto the colored sheet with a sponge brush. When
dry, the painted sheet is ready for scratch painting. The recipe
mentions that the detergent was added to improve paint
adherence for some mysterious chemical reason. The recipe
did not indicate how many drops of detergent or the volume of
paint. Attempts to use the recipe produced unsatisfactory
results – the paint chipped.
It was decided that the given recipe represented a known solution to a problem
whose root cause was given. This solution concept could be generified into a
template for other solution concepts.
The existing closed world consists of three objects; crayon, paint

and detergent. The function of detergent is to improve bonding of
paint to crayon, hence, it is assumed to be an object between paint
and crayon. This phenomenology needs to be understood in order
to form a generalized solution. We turn to the uniqueness technique for such
insight.
Unique characteristics of these objects include wax-like crayon,

water-like paint, and a detergent molecule bonding to both. Spatial
uniqueness shows the detergent to be dispersed throughout the
USIT 33
paint but to be active only at the interface where it bonds paint to crayon. How
does it work?
A detergent molecule has the unique feature of two active but

dissimilar sites; one is polar and the other is non-polar.
From high school chemistry we learned that similar molecules

like each other (are miscible) and dissimilar molecules do not
(are not miscible). This means that the polar site likes to bond to polar molecules
like water while the non-polar site likes to bond to non-polar molecules like wax.
Now we have a solution template. To avoid cracking and chipping the paint
needs to be bonded to the crayon more tightly than to itself. An interfacial layer
of molecules having two active sites, one polar and the other non-polar, can
provide stronger bonding than direct crayon-paint bonds. This is the solution
concept, the rest is engineering. In this case, one engineered concept was to put a
thin coat of detergent onto the layer of crayon and dry it. Then the layer of paint,
having no detergent in it, was applied – with excellent results.
All solution concepts are opportunities for generification.
USIT 34
Chapter X. How to apply USIT
Like other structured systems we’ve learned in our academic and professional careers,
USIT is a discipline. It takes time to learn, time to experiment with, and time to
become an adept practitioner. Fortunately, the whole trip is one of satisfying
intellectual challenge.
Some suggestions may be helpful to ease the process of becoming a USIT

practitioner:
• Think of problems and solutions you encounter in terms of objects, attributes, and
the functions they support. This is the starting point of all USIT. Adopt it as a
mode of thinking.
• When solving problems and puzzles pay attention to how thought provoking are
specific steps – experiment with each:
o Simplification of a problem statement to essential elements by stripping
away useless information.
o Conceptual analysis and solution based on fundamental phenomenology
before addressing engineering details – i.e., elimination of metrics.
o Focus achieved by reducing a problem situation to a single well-defined
unwanted effect.
o Focus and innovative-type thinking produced by limiting analysis to a
minimal set of objects.
o How often solution concepts arise as soon as root causes are identified.
o How concentration of root causes forces one to address fundamental
phenomenology.
o Changing technical or commercial names of object to metaphors.
o How clear thinking improves with writing words and making sketches of a
problem situation.
o How new concepts arise out of unconventional analyses.
As they say, “The proof is in the pudding.” So, start cooking!
USIT 35
Chapter XI. Conclusion
This overview gives the full scope of USIT but not its depth. However, one practiced
in conceptual problem solving should be able to understand the tools described here.
Sorely lacking are in-depth examples and their discussions. It was not the intent of
this book to delve into such depth – it is an overview. The textbook (1) is a resource
for that information, as well as the Ntelleck web site (4). Courses taught at your
company are available through Ntelleck, LLC. (See www.u-sit.net)
USIT trainers and those preparing to be trainers should find this overview a useful
reference. This book plus the reverse engineering examples on the web (4) are
recommended for this audience.
Of course depth and understanding come with experience – so, solve problems at
every opportunity and remember, …
… “To be creative U-SIT and think.”

Ed Sickafus
Ntelleck, LLC
USIT 36
Appendix A. Miscellaneous exercises
1. What solution technique(s) might have led to an automatic garage-door opener
concept?
• What unwanted effect(s) did it resolve?

• If more than one, which is the most undesirable?
2. An unwanted effect of a computer mouse is to move it but see no

corresponding motion of the cursor on the monitor.
• Identify the objects of this system.

• Make a sketch.
• Do a plausible root-causes analysis.
3. Zippers on jackets can be difficult to engage before being zipped.
• Devise an automatic or self-engaging system.
4. Describe the following effects as transduction A-F-A links:

• piezoelectricity
• magnetostriction
• boiling of a liquid
USIT 37
Appendix B. Additional resources
Books
1. Unified Structured Inventive Thinking – How to Invent” by Ed. Sickafus, Ntelleck,
LLC, Grosse Ile, MI, USA, ISBN 0-965-94350-X, 488 pp, hard bound (see www.u-
sit.net).
In this textbook 26 problems and puzzles are discussed and analyzed to different
degrees for 16 different aspects of USIT. Most problems leave some parts unfinished
to provide classroom exercises for instructors and students.
2. “Unified Structured Inventive Thinking – an Overview” by Ed. Sickafus, Ntelleck,

LLC, Grosse Ile, MI, USA, e-book and paperback.
3. “Creative Cognition – Theory, Research, and Applications”, R.A. Finke, T.B.

Ward, and S.M. Smith, The MIT Press, Cambridge, 1992.
Websites
4. Essays, lectures, example problems, exercises, puzzles, and USIT Q’s & A’s can
be found at www.u-sit.net. Questions about USIT are welcome as are suggestions for
USIT discussion topics.
5. Dr. Roni Horowitz, Tel-Aviv, Israel, has an ASIT web site with on-line training at
www.start2think.com
6. Professor Toru Nakagawa, Osaka Gakuin University, Osaka, Japan, maintains a

TRIZ and USIT site in Japanese and English at www.osaka-
gu.ac.jp/php/nakagawa/TRIZ/eTRIZ/. Translations of some USIT material into
Japanese is available here.
USIT 38
Appendix D. License Agreement
AGREEMENT
for free access and use of the ebook,
“Unified Structured Inventive Thinking – an Overview” by Ed. Sickafus, Ph.D.

ISBN 0-9659435-1-8
The textual and artistic material in this book are copyrighted and owned by Ntelleck,
LLC of Grosse Ile, MI, USA. Through the courtesy of your registration (name, email
address, company or institution and country) you are allowed to access, download,
and use this material including its distribution in any form for academic, non-
commercial, educational purposes. Any use of this material requires accompanying
acknowledgement of Ntelleck, LLC as copyright owner and Ed. N. Sickafus as its
author. Anyone may teach the concepts in this ebook without compensation to
Ntelleck, LLC or to Dr. Sickafus.
For permission to incorporate any part or all of this material in commercial products
on any kind, including books, magazines, video, advertisements, training materials
(including private, corporate training materials), etc., you may send your request to
Ntelleck, LLC, P.O. Box 193, Grosse Ile, MI, 48138, U.S.A. or email to Ntelleck@u-
sit.net.
By requesting or downloading this ebook you are agreeing to comply with these
conditions.
Copyright © 2001 by Ntelleck, LLC, Grosse Ile, MI, USA

Author Ed. N. Sickafus, Ph.D.
Source: www.u-sit.net
Ntelleck@u-sit.net
Disclaimer
This book describes a methodology for assisting the discovery of solution concepts to
design- and other technical-type problems. None of the concepts has been engineered,
tested, or verified in any way by Ntelleck, LLC. No warranty or guarantee is offered
or implied for any solution concept discussed herein.
Unified Structured Inventive Thinking
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| BAR CODE||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
USIT 40

Unified Structured Inventive Thinking

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unified Structured Inventive Thinking

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIFIED

Published by: Ntelleck, LLC

By requesting this ebook you agree to the conditions given in

Copyright 2001 by Ed. N. Sickafus

and to our sons

This book is a supplement to the textbook, “Unified Structured Inventive Thinking –

USIT exist. These arose mostly from a different motivation.

Modifications introduced in USIT that address corporate needs include

My experience with lecturing, leading and applying structured inventive thinking in

2. Contents of this overview

Two thinking-aid-type models have been developed to aid the understanding of

Both methods of analysis produce innovative thinking under constrained conditions

The book closes with references to sources of other relevant materials.

Students of USIT are encouraged to apply their conventional problem solving

USIT promises unusual perspectives of a problem situation in order to discover

Especially important is to recognize that problem-solving methodologies do not give

It is a tacit assumption of USIT that thinking is sparked by the metaphorical impact of

Unified structured inventive thinking is a thorough search for solution concepts. A

A most important view of USIT is as an effective and efficient (easily applied)

Non-attributes include red (quantifies color), 20 pounds (quantifies weight), 5o

An attribute can be represented as a color or pattern without

The combination of these two sketches represents an object

At the point of contact of two objects active attributes

1. The O-A-F contact model

2. The electronic feedback model

An electronic feedback-circuit model can be used to capture these aspects of the

It is the nature of a feedback operational-amplifier circuit to shift its output towards

Figure 3. USIT flow chart (see text for discussion).

To be noted here is the detail incorporated in the well-defined problem section.

Convolutions of several ill-defined effects typify an initial problem statement. If this

available. One is the closed-world method which is executed C

Chapter VI. Well-defined USIT problem

1. Verbal and graphic descriptions

3. Select one unwanted effect

7. Plausible root causes tool

object object object

cause/effect cause/effect cause/effect cause/effect

• attributes • attributes • attributes

Postponing judgment of solution feasibility is a well-known recommendation for

Simplification of problem description is ongoing during production of a well-defined

10. Two methods for problem analysis

A common situation for a corporate technologist is to be given a malfunctioning

Chapter VII. Closed-world method

O-A-F sentence template:

Difficulty experienced when first encountering attributes as key elements in problem

A qc-graph shows a problem characteristic, a mapping of an attribute on an unwanted

unwanted problem characteristic problem characteristic

qualitative change qualitative change

object-A … object-A object-A … object-A

• attribute • attribute • attribute • attribute

From QC-graph to solution concepts:

• Construct a cw-diagram of this system.

4) A cup of hot tea rests on a small mat, which is resting on a table.

• List the active attributes of the cup.

5) A map-light placed in the roof of an automobile illuminates the area of the

• List the objects of this system

Chapter VIII. Particles method

A sketch is made of the problem situation using simple representations of the

problem situation ideal solution

An example is shown in Fig. (7) without intermediate sketches. To these sketches

problem situation ideal solution

statement of the ideal solution

clause and/or clause